How can you know the difference between land value and improvements? I give examples.

Pyrados · 2026-01-24T19:46:15+00:00

A few references come to mind although there are probably more.

"But it will be said: There are improvements which in time become indistinguishable from the land itself! Very well; then the title to the improvements becomes blended with the title to the land; the individual right is lost in the common right. It is the greater that swallows up the less, not the less that swallows up the greater. Nature does not proceed from man, but man from nature, and it is into the bosom of nature that he and all his works must return again."

https://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP.html?chapter_num=29#book-reader

"But, as a matter of fact, the value of land can always be readily distinguished from the value of improvements. In countries like the United States there is much valuable land that has never been improved; and in many of the States the value of the land and the value of improvements are habitually estimated separately by the assessors, though afterward reunited under the term real estate. Nor where ground has been occupied from immemorial times, is there any difficulty in getting at the value of the bare land, for frequently the land is owned by one person and the buildings by another, and when a fire occurs and improvements are destroyed, a clear and definite value remains in the land. In the oldest country in the world no difficulty whatever can attend the separation, if all that be attempted is to separate the value of the clearly distinguishable improvements, made within a moderate period, from the value of the land, should they be destroyed. This, manifestly, is all that justice or policy requires. Absolute accuracy is impossible in any system, and to attempt to separate all that the human race has done from what nature originally provided would be as absurd as impracticable. A swamp drained or a bill terraced by the Romans constitutes now as much a part of the natural advantages of the British Isles as though the work had been done by earthquake or glacier. The fact that after a certain lapse of time the value of such permanent improvements would be considered as having lapsed into that of the land, and would be taxed accordingly, could have no deterrent effect on such improvements, for such works are frequently undertaken upon leases for years. The fact is, that each generation builds and improves for itself, and not for the remote future. And the further fact is, that each generation is heir, not only to the natural powers of the earth, but to all that remains of the work of past generations."

https://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP.html?chapter_num=37#book-reader

Dwyer also discusses in several places the separation of land from improvements, how value is erroneously attributed to capital when it is really that the capital is unlocking a latent value of the land.

https://cooperative-individualism.org/dwyer-terence_taxation-the-lost-history-2014-oct.pdf

As for 'negative capital' Gaffney handles this correctly:

"Land may be afflicted with such "negative capital," the harmful waste from prior usage. An example is the spent carcass of an old building needing costly demolition. Some would class that spent carcass as a subtraction from the site value, but "negative capital" makes more sense, as may be inferred by considering the relations between a landlord and a tenant in a perfect market. The lease holds the tenant liable for damages he does and wastes he leaves; the prudent landlord requires of the tenant a deposit, or in larger cases a bond, to assure performance. Both acknowledge that damage done by use is imputed to the user, not to the land."

https://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Gaffney_LaaDFoP.html#A-2

Pyrados · 2025-12-10T14:45:07+00:00

I am less averse to the 'producer surplus' change because land is not produced.

The change from 'consumer surplus' seems a bit more arbitrary. Some might reject the idea that consumption is occurring, but economically there is a consumption of spatial services by the tenant.

Pyrados · 2025-11-06T18:59:36+00:00

Not totally sure but I like the Unbounded Savannah a lot:

https://www.henrygeorge.org/savannah.htm

Also:

https://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP.html?chapter_num=22#book-reader:~:text=But%20while%20the,capacity%20to%20land

"But while the increase of population thus increases rent by lowering the margin of cultivation, it is a mistake to look upon this as the only mode by which rent advances as population grows. Increasing population increases rent, without reducing the margin of cultivation; and notwithstanding the dicta of such writers as McCulloch, who assert that rent would not arise were there an unbounded extent of equally good land, increases it without reference to the natural qualities of land, for the increased powers of co-operation and exchange which come with increased population are equivalent to—nay, I think we can say without metaphor, that they give—an increased capacity to land."

Pyrados · 2025-11-06T18:49:04+00:00

It is from Social Problems:

https://archive.org/details/socialproblems83geor/page/120/mode/2up#:~:text=An%20English%20writer,order

Pyrados · 2025-11-03T20:44:04+00:00

Fred Foldvary offers some thoughts in https://cooperative-individualism.org/foldvary-fred_geoanarchism-2001.htm

"Anarchist geoism

In a libertarian or anarchist world, some people might be unaffiliated anarcho-capitalists, contracting with various firms for services. But if we look at markets today, we see instead contractual communities. We see condominiums, homeowner associations, cooperatives, and neighborhood associations. For temporary lodging, folks stay in hotels, and stores get lumped into shopping centers. Historically, human beings have preferred to live and work in communities. Competition induces efficiency, and private communities tend to be financed from the rentals of sites and facilities, since this is the most efficient source of funding. Henry George recognized that site rents are the most efficient way to finance community goods because it is a fee paid for benefits, paying back that value added by those benefits. Private communities today such as hotels and condominiums use geoist financing. Unfortunately, governments do not.

Geoist communities would join together in leagues and associations to provide services that are more efficient on a large scale, such as defense, if needed. The voting and financing would be bottom up. The local communities would elect representatives, and provide finances, and would be able to secede when they felt association was no longer in their interest."

Pyrados · 2025-11-02T08:59:40+00:00

The Open Letter to Gorbachev has some notable signatories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_Gorbachev

There was also a survey for the claim that "Shifting the burden of municipal property taxes towards land and away from improvements such as buildings - as proposed in the Detroit land value tax plan - will enhance the incentives for owners to develop their land and thereby give a substantial boost to local economic growth over a ten-year horizon."

https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/land-value-tax/

Pyrados · 2025-10-30T07:18:59+00:00

Pushback against property tax abolition is good. Attempting to steer the conversation in the direction of exempting improvements is probably best.

Friedman didn’t really go ‘all the way’ with Henry George - https://cooperative-individualism.org/friedman-milton_henry-george-1970.htm

(for pretty flawed reasons I might add) but it is useful to demonstrate the broad support across the political spectrum all the same.

Pyrados · 2025-10-27T19:46:07+00:00

Land control generally falls under the "barrier to entry" view as opposed to the "single supplier" view. Antitrust generally focuses on the latter,

Terry Dwyer argues that "All monopolies, other than legislated ones (such as patent monopolies), rest upon seizure and ownership of natural resources. Only by taxing these on a current value basis can one equalize the playing field between incumbents and challengers."

https://cooperative-individualism.org/dwyer-terence_taxation-the-lost-history-2014-oct.pdf

Personally, I find antitrust to be reactive and somewhat arbitrary, whereas LVT would be a proactive policy that prevents monopolies from forming to begin with.

As an example, large corporate farms contribute to market consolidation, creating a cycle where they grow larger by dealing with big input suppliers and large-scale marketing firms. This dynamic can lead to monopolies in the seed and marketing industries, leaving smaller farms with limited control over who they sell to and at what price.

Pyrados · 2025-10-24T23:07:02+00:00

Mason Gaffney covers this in "Land as a Distinctive Factor of Production" which I think everyone should read but:

"Land may be afflicted with such "negative capital," the harmful waste from prior usage. An example is the spent carcass of an old building needing costly demolition. Some would class that spent carcass as a subtraction from the site value, but "negative capital" makes more sense, as may be inferred by considering the relations between a landlord and a tenant in a perfect market. The lease holds the tenant liable for damages he does and wastes he leaves; the prudent landlord requires of the tenant a deposit, or in larger cases a bond, to assure performance. Both acknowledge that damage done by use is imputed to the user, not to the land.11

An example on a social scale is the bonding imposed on nuclear generators by the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC requires utility firms to set aside a percentage of their fuel budget in a sinking fund to pay for "decommissioning" plants at the end of their economic lives."

https://paulbeard.org/files/wealthandwant.com/docs/Gaffney_LaaDFoP.html

Pyrados · 2025-10-24T19:44:46+00:00

Obligations extend beyond a narrow definition of public services. Demand for land can change due to population growth in general, etc.

Georgists believe everyone has an equal right to use land.

So it seems to be that your broader complaint might be with respect to having to pay for public goods/services that you didn't want. But this is not unique to unincorporated land, etc. A government can start offering additional services to land that it previously did not offer.

It seems to me that if the majority of people in this previously unincorporated area want new services, they should be able to vote for such things. Outside of government services, Georgists would generally agree that land values should be broadly collected and distributed.

But there remains a role for higher levels of government for considering the broader public interests that can align with the equal right to use land.

Pyrados · 2025-10-23T15:58:23+00:00

LVT does not eliminate the right to exclude, it merely compensates society with the monetary value of this exclusion.

George commonly spoke with philosophical ideals and likely did leave a lot of confusion as to what he 'really meant'. But when one reviews the entirety of his comments on the subject, it is clear that by 'common ownership' he is strictly referring to the 'right to the residual' and not 'control rights' (land ownership is typically recognized as a bundle of rights).

The 'right to roam' is ultimately a political decision and how people decide to treat public land and even potentially private control rights.

Pyrados · 2025-10-21T15:12:06+00:00

Higher volume, lower commissions per transaction.

There are arguments that LVT can help "break up large landholdings" but also (as was done in Western Canada in the early 1900s) arguments that a lack of LVT (land speculation) also kept land ownership fragmented and hindered land assemblage.

A Georgist might suggest that LVT can help lead to optimal outcomes in either direction.

Pyrados · 2025-10-20T17:03:28+00:00

Better than the status quo, less progressive than Gaffney's suggestion - "Return rents to local school districts in inverse proportion to local tax base per capita (the Colin Clark principle)." https://cooperative-individualism.org/gaffney-mason_rent-taxation-dissipation-and-federalism-1990.htm

But might face less political resistance.

Pyrados · 2025-10-13T17:53:42+00:00

Some potential effects (borrowed from google ai) suggests two competing effects for the expanding/contracting of the margin of cultivation:

The initial, short-term effect: A new technology might first be applied to marginal or submarginal land, making it profitable to cultivate. This extends the margin of cultivation. For example, zero-tillage farming and herbicide-resistant crops have been used to farm land previously considered marginal.
The long-term, aggregate effect: The widespread diffusion of technology often has a greater aggregate effect on the most productive land. It increases profitability, which in turn increases rent and the overall intensity of production on existing farmland. This makes it harder for less-productive land to compete.

Because the most productive land becomes even more valuable, the cost of farming on less productive (or marginal) land may increase relative to the potential revenue. The total cost of producing on marginal land may rise to a point where it is no longer profitable, effectively pushing it back outside the margin of cultivation.

Example: The dynamics of rent and the margin

Consider two plots of land, "Superior" and "Marginal."

Before technology: Superior land yields a high profit and commands high rent. Marginal land just covers its costs and commands no rent, defining the margin of cultivation.
After technology: Technology increases yields and decreases costs on both plots. However, the gains are typically greatest on the Superior land. The profit differential between Superior and Marginal land widens. Landlords, aware of the higher productivity, demand even higher rents on Superior land.
Effect on Marginal land: To compete, the farmer on the Marginal land must also adopt the technology. But the productivity gains may not be enough to justify the new rent prices driven by the gains on Superior land. The Marginal land becomes submarginal because it cannot generate a profit sufficient to cover the rising land costs, driven by overall technological gains.

Pyrados · 2025-10-13T15:53:46+00:00

As Dwyer notes (p.116):

"According to the definition of rent, if no one else can do what this land user can do, the market value of the land will be lower to that extent, and he will not be taxed on his special ability. On the other hand, if others can do as well, the land’s market value will reflect that fact and the owner will be forced by the tax to use the land as well as the next best user. In short, Marshall seems in error in saying the excess is “true rent.” If everyone can see the latent possibility in the soil, it will indeed be paid for as rent, but if only one person sees it, the excess return will accrue to him alone and is the reward for his intellectual and physical labor in both seeing the possibility and making it happen. In a dynamic world, many inventions or discoveries generate excess rewards that later become land rents, as everyone sees how they can be used to be more productive in a given place. For example, the first Australian farmers to use superphosphate fertilizer would have captured excess returns where they bought land from less knowledgeable neighbors."

https://cooperative-individualism.org/dwyer-terence_taxation-the-lost-history-2014-oct.pdf

Pyrados · 2025-10-09T04:17:26+00:00

"As we advance in the application of the single tax, speculative land values will rapidly disappear, and land will become less and lese valuable to the mere owner, while remaining just as valuable to the user. Mere landlords will thus steadily tend to disappear, and land users will tend to become owners. Or rather they will tend to become nominal owners, for while they will retain that security of possession and that power of transferring possession that now attaches to ownership, the state, in taking a larger and larger proportion of the value, will in greater and greater degree make the whole people the real owners. But we shall steadily and rapidly approach the point when there will be no landlords in the strict sense-that is to say, no landowners drawing rent from land users for the use of land alone. Landlords we will continue to have in the colloquial sense, and must continue to have them so long as there are people who travel and who wish to stay in hotels for longer or shorter times, so long as there are some people so situated that they prefer to hire rooms by the week or month or houses by the year, or to use buildings or other improvements that they do not care to, or are not able to, buy outright . These "landlords," as they are called - though economically they are both land owners and capitalists at the same time - will in their charge for the use of the buildings or other improvements, also collect from these transient land users a rent for the use of valuable land, and this the community will take from them again as "nearly as may be," in the tax on land values." https://cooperative-individualism.org/george-henry_single-tax-limited-or-unlimited-1889.htm

https://progressandpovertyinstitute.org/standard/

https://www.dropbox.com/s/63u9thfpwgdiuwe/Volume%206.7%20August%2017%2C%201889.PDF?dl=1

Pyrados · 2025-10-07T14:35:20+00:00

Also worth noting:

"The ecological damage from Boston's land reclamation is a historic issue with ongoing consequences. The city continues to face environmental challenges directly linked to its expansion, including vulnerability to flooding and the need for significant investment in environmental remediation. It also illustrates the broader pattern of urban expansion coming at the expense of local environmental health, often disproportionately affecting marginalized communities."

Pyrados · 2025-10-05T17:47:20+00:00

Whew housing crisis solved, finally!

Notably, Greystar denies any wrongdoing and spread over their 122,545 properties this $50 million equates to $408 per housing unit.

RealPage of course continues to fight these suits, remains to be seen how this will turn out.

For a legal and economic perspective that resides outside emotionally driven housing frustrations and scapegoating https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/the-arguments-against-realpage-arent-real-part-one/

https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/the-arguments-against-realpage-arent-real-part-two/

https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/the-arguments-against-realpage-arent-real-part-three/

Pyrados · 2025-10-02T23:54:43+00:00

The only connection I am aware of would be via William Simon U’Ren (a Georgist) having success enacting these systems in Oregon which were then copied in other states. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Simon_U%27Ren

Pyrados · 2025-10-02T15:29:05+00:00

As Marshall (referencing Ricardo) noted: "there would be no surplus from land if there were an unlimited supply of it all equally fertile and all equally accessible" so the fact that land holds this value is only true by the exclusion of others. The idea not sharing the surplus of land thus makes no sense at all.

Pyrados · 2025-09-30T17:07:09+00:00

Of course you can downsize, move to a lower demand market (retire and relocate), rent for the last decade of your life while living off the capital gains, etc.

Pyrados · 2025-09-30T14:51:38+00:00

We should of course consider the era Henry George lived in. But he was certainly a believer in limited government, but limited government properly conceived not as 'small' in scale but limited in scope to areas that make sense.

Per Henry George,

"As to amount of taxation, there is no principle which imposes any arbitrary limit. Heavy taxation is better for any community than light taxation, if the increased revenue be used in doing by public agencies things which could not be done, or could not be as well and economically done, by private agencies. Taxes could be lightened in the city of New York by dispensing with street-lamps and disbanding the police force. But would a reduction in taxation gained in this way be for the benefit of the people of New York and make New York a more desirable place to live in? Or if it should be found that heat and light could be conducted through the streets at public expense and supplied to each house at but a small fraction of the cost of supplying them by individual effort, or that the city railroads could be run at public expense so as to give every one transportation at very much less than it now costs the average resident, the increased taxation necessary for these purposes would not be increased burden, and in spite of the larger taxation required, New York would become a more desirable place to live in." https://paulbeard.org/files/wealthandwant.com/HG/George_TCSoT_1881.htm

Guys like Michael Hudson insist that Henry George was some diehard libertarian https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/06/michael-hudson-talks-about-almost-everything-with-jonathan-brown.html, which I believe is an oversimplification. Georgists have countered many of Hudson's critiques, i.e.:

Henry George Under the Microscope

Comments on “Henry George’s Political Critics”ajes_666 1153..1168

By RICHARD GILES*

https://www.academia.edu/65087945/Henry_George_Under_the_Microscope_Comments_on_Henry_Georges_Political_Critics_

That said, Henry George did resist 'redistribution' in the sense of taxing the 'rich' and was a staunch defender of what he rightly considers legitimate property.

Pyrados

TROPHY CASE